Quote:
Originally Posted by Patricia
That's true, Sparrow.
But one can worry about the way that some believers don't appreciate that tolerance works both ways.
I've long been mildly fed up with religious advertisements on British public transport. Buses and trains often have advertisements from Christian evangelist sects. But I wouldn't dream of making a complaint to the Advertising Standards Authority.
But when the British Humanist Society recently advertised on a few buses with the slogan, "There's probably no God," there were hundreds of complaints, and one driver refused to drive his bus.
I believe that there must be a parity of tolerance.
The story is here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7813812.stm
and here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/h...re/7832647.stm |
Can everyone see the difference between an advertisement being PRO religion, or God or spirituality and an advertisement ATTACKING the same by saying "There's probably no God"? That is like taking out an ad saying "athiests are morons". There is a big difference between being FOR something and ATTACKING something in an offensive way, which was the point of my original post. Even DixieGal expressed her faith in an honest an open way, complemented the people in this forum as being "good people" and then the "good" people in this forum proceeded to attack her and mock her beliefs. I don't get it.
My only point was the preloaded material should be NEUTRAL and tolerant to all points of view. I really do not think that is so radical an idea.
I have been called "intolerant" numerous times here, but I do not think that I have been the one who has been intolerant. I simply and respectfully brought up a topic that was not addressed on this forum for discussion, and there have been several regrettable comments aimed towards me. I am a new member and do not know anyone here. And now, for merely bringing up an issue, somehow I deserve this sort of treatment.
My ONLY point was to say that in MY opinion (and respecting that others may have a different opinion), it was a curious choice to have a book loaded on the reader that clearly attacks a particular group of people. THAT'S ALL. What if there was a preloaded book that attacks Hispanics or Indians or African-Americans? Is everyone OK with that? If so, then fine. That is YOUR perspective and you are entitled to express it. I would vehemently disagree, and say that I believe NO ONE should be attacked in a particular book that is preloaded. There shouldn't be anti-Obama or anti-Bush books on the Reader either.
Should they be available in the Sony store? Sure. Should someone be free to purchase that book if it was offered? Of course. I just think it is a curious choice to PRELOAD on a Reader to a general audience of everyone. Someone at Sony made that choice, and I was wondering why it was made. Period.
As a new member, I really didn't expect to be tarred and feathered and have a hundred posts after mine in a matter of 24 hours for expressing a simple opinion.
I certainly do appreciate the few members who pointed out that I was ONLY politely bringing up a new topic, and were kind enough to respectfully reply to me. Thank you for that. I wish you all well in the future, and in growing your community. Good luck to all of you.